The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity
Dlihcup
Over the years the existence of a conflict between Quantum Theory and
General Relativity has been repeatedly mentioned in publications. Quantum
Theory deals very well with the very small. It has proven to be phenomenally
accurate in every test. General Relativity deals fairly well with the very
large, but cannot be tested to a meaningful accuracy, at least in the puny
Solar gravitational field in which we can make precise observations. It is not
possible to determine whether our observations overlook second order
deviations. In order to be correct, however, the two theories must produce
compatible results at the boundary between the very large and the very small.
THEY DON'T and the fact that they don't has led to incredible gyrations among
theoretical physicists over the last several decades. Quantum theory can't be
wrong, its observational testing has produced phenomenally accurate results in
every aspect. General Relativity cannot be wrong since it was mathematically
derived by Dr. Einstein and accepted by learned conferences and committees.
To settle the impasse, theoreticians have developed superstring theory
which asserts that everything in the universe is composed of loops of string
having lengths on the order of 10^-35 meters vibrating in 11 (or 26)
dimensions. Standing back and looking at the situation, it would seem it would
seem that it is time to stand back and say "Hey, wait a minute!".
General Relativity has some intuitively questionable areas:
1.- It requires that space be a curved geometry. When it is remembered that
every non-Euclidean space of N dimensions can be contained in a Euclidean space
of N+1 dimensions it becomes obvious that if one is to consider our observable
space is curved into an otherwise unnecessary fourth spatial dimension, he must
consider the nature of that four dimensional space. Unfortunately, no
significant attempt to describe that required 4 dimensional Euclidean space
seems to have been made.
2.- It alleges that what we experience as the 'force of gravity' results from
the "curvature of space", that objects move in "straight lines" in that "curved
space", and what we experience as the force of gravity results from attempts to
make an object depart from that straight line path. Horse feathers, there is no
way in &^%$#@ that the geometry of "curved space" can produce the force we
experience as gravity any more than the curvature of the Earth's surface can
produce a force along a great circle path.
3:- When one attempts to apply General Relativity to the small scale, the
allegedly "curved space" becomes more and more violently curved. This violent
curvature would not occur if the gravitational field did not produce spatial
curvature and superstring theories would become meaningless since the quantum
and gravitational theories would then blend smoothly.
For some reason, the community of theoretical physicists seems incapable
of challenging the validity of GR because of the requirement that their work be
politically rather than objectively correct. As has been shown in these
postings and in http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm , the
gravitational field is not correctly described by GR but is defined completely
in terms of three dimensional space. The treatment at the website would not be
presented if it was not entirely compatible with the observations which are
alleged to have confirmed the validity of GR, and if it did not work in three
dimensional Euclidean space.
It is time that the foolishness resulting from Dr. Einstein's sophomoric
error in the derivation of GR. Without that error, he would have been able to
solve the equations of GR without resorting to the fakery of "curved space".
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einste...@aol.com
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.